Vista and 7 are essentially the same things, just 7 has less annoying UACs.

All Vista really did wrong was the UACs were way too annoying.

Nobody wants to have to answer "Are you sure?" every time they do anything.

Windows 8 has no such problem.  Windows 8 works beautifully across the board.  It just doesn't have a start menu and people miss it.

You should all hope that Windows 9 or whatever it is doesn't come with a start menu, because then there can be a Start9 and SD can make more money.  Then they can afford to make more games (what I want) or spend more money making GalCiv3 or whatever (also good).

Really though, it would be nice if people just got used to the Metro UI.

Windows 95 was a huge change over Windows 3.1 and I think people universally agreed that was better after they got used to the differences.  Doesn't seem to be much different to me between that and 7 --> 8.

- Edit - Clarity

It's a safe bet that Stardock would rather ENHANCE Windows than FIX Windows...

Quite a lot different considering it was 16bit vs 32bit....

....and Kona was right....it's more likely going to take a v 9 to make amends for the ill-fated 8 ....

I would be afraid to have a MS originated "ModernMix-like" feature
MS tends to break things, look at the release of windows8.1- I couldnt use Decor since then...
If they implement such a feature such as "MM" it will give you the freedom of having your apps on the desktop but will likely fail in a different spot or will not work probably on the startmenu itself...Im sure if they undertake something like this they will add a live app feature for the desktop and set that to "permanent 

Or worse... what if they make the desktop your startmenu / and be like problem solved 

 

Whether you call it W9 (or in the case of Vista SP2 needed to fix Vista). Windows 7 was a de-kludged Vista... the point is that what's really missing from W8/8.1 is the "windows for apps", being able to work side-by-side and the functional start menu.

That is W8 + Start8 and ModernMix equivalents.

You can call that W8 SP2, or W8.1 SP2, or Windows 9.

The semantics are immaterial. At least I'm defining what it needs to succeed, imo...what do you all think it needs? Specifically.

 

 

It 'needs' Microsoft to throw themselves on their swords and admit chasing their arses with 'service pack' fixes is a poor solution to their original fuck-up...and declare 8 dead and move on to 9 where sense can be restored.

...and sack whom-ever it was who thought up the idea of FORCING a hand-held OS on people who actually USE their OS for things other than twittering....

Shades of MASH.

The screwup was not reconceiving the start menu (like Start8 or Pokki [minus the obligatory Pokki Store app]) and not including the ability to work in a side by side mode...making a lot of kludgy ways of navigating. If a Tiles/ModernMix/Start8 combo is installed on 8, it becomes a good OS...imo.

SD didn't put together "W8 for Dummies", so to speak, nor a "bridge" from 7 to 8 (although it can be used that way).

The way I see it, until a new OS happens (which will take time and more thought than 8), SD has given MS an excellent direction (and saved 8) by making it workable and (more) attractive at the same time. The current rumors about "Threshold" (and they're only that) indicate a willingness to rethink it in a way SD has made possible.

For whatever it's worth.

 

My personal opinion is that MS needs to bring the Windows 7 menu back.  I seem to be in the majority from everyone I've talked to in person.  I haven't found a single person in real life who prefers the W8/8.1 UI.  It makes me wonder about those who say they prefer it in forums.  Just saying.

I have W8.1 with Start8 and have recommended Start8 to those who come to me asking how to use their computers or those who complain about the W8 UI.  There are a lot of people who come to me asking about their computers and some of that relates to one of my duties being IT manager.  People ask my advice on their home computers.  Start8 makes all the difference.

I no longer care if MS brings the Start Menu back because I already have it.  And at $5.00 a pop, everyone can. 

As for the company, I order only W7 computers.  You won't see a W8 computer here until I'm forced to get one.  Once that happens, I'll see about a corporate version of Start8.

 

Im one of those strange guys that actually prefers the windows8 start navigation over the old startmenu (the look is something they could work on)
If they add a startmenu I demand an option to disable it and use Windows8 Start ( the same goes for the startbutton (i want to be able to hide it once again )
I can see MS adding a Modernmix like thing just to have the apps in balance with the desktop
But bringing back the old 7 startmenu? NO! - this might sound ignorant, but they should let the people buy it from SD.

its not like Photoshop gives you extra options for free.
The OS can be operated the way it is, and if folks don´t like it then they should pay or stick with windows7 or whatever they have.
I think best would be to simply make windows9 go back in time and make it windows7.9 and keep windows8 the way it is and have them seperated.
This way both partys stay happy... +It would be pretty unwise to punish customers who liked the idea of windows8 just to please the rest.
 

That's what people are doing....and 'IF' stores could still give the option to customers to have a computer with either there'd be many LESS 8 OS's in the wild.

Once an office/workplace 'virtual monopoly' has indoctrinated/brain-washed its user base into one system of OS/GUI over decades they [should] have an undertaking/responsibility to introduce any changes 'gently'  AND with an option to 'opt out'. 

Probably true since the OEM's won't offer anything but MS's latest and Linux.

Wish MS or the OEMs had swung a deal with SD like Dell did. Their sales would have been better.

Zero of that has to do with anything related to whether or not it makes business sense, whereas the only thing that should have anything to do with use/not use in a business setting is whether or not it makes business sense.  See where this is going?  Just sayin.

Your personal attacks don't impress me, btw.

Does MSFT have a history of asking users before doing things in upcoming OSs that I don't know about?  Does Apple?  Does Google?

No progress would ever get made if everybody had to opt in for any change MSFT wants to make.

I would say rather that MSFT and all the other OS designers have a pretty good track record of making changes and forcing users to like it.  Indeed, giving them little to no opportunities to opt out other than the obvious choice they have to skip the upgrade.

Funny, I haven't talked to a real life person who prefers W7 over W8...no really, I haven't...maybe I should wonder about people on the forums who claim W8 is bad...

I really don't think we want to critique a business model based on anecdotal evidence...there are good facts out there that point to the polarizing nature of W8 and its weaknesses, such as surveys of new W8 users and number of requests made to OEMs by customers for W7 installs after W8 was released....

What makes you think W9 is going to return to your golden standard of W7?  As far as UI goes, W8.1 is almost identical to W7 minus a start menu...if W8.2 had you set "boot to desktop" during your initial setup, added a start menu, and allowed advanced startup options to be dealt with in desktop mode, most people wouldn't have any problems with W8 since they could use it just as they use W7...

 

Probably.

The reality all change [until Metro] had been evolutionary not revolutionary.  An interface designed specifically for a touch screen as 'first function' should never have been forced on people with 8.   That is why 8 is a commercial flop.

Alphas...pre betas...betas....all the 'stuff' before the RTM is when silliness is cleared out of an OS.  This time either people were blind-sided by their attempt to create a universal interface for ALL machines and dropped the ball....or MS simply said 'fuck-you we're doing what we want' and are now paying the price.

Jafo - My theory is that if MSFT would have changed the UI around so that it was markedly different every time, people would not have really cared about 7 --> 8.  People got the expectation of relatively small change because that is what they were given for quite a good while.

Nobody was owed small change at any point.  Kinda funny how the nice to have's become things people get pissed off about when they don't have it.

I don't see any good reason why an interface can't be designed to work on both a touch screen and a regular PC at the same time.  I don't really feel like I am owed different UIs for those two different applications.  I can click tiles pretty easily with a mouse, for instance.

Maybe I just have a really low sense of entitlement, or maybe I read "Who Moved My Cheese" one too many times (IE 1).  Not that I am trying to say we should go around seeking out opportunities to adapt, or anything.  I just think that we should probably do it when it is warranted and there are at least some reasonable arguments that it is warranted now.

Selucia - I think if OEMs offered XP, 95, or even Windows 3.1 as possible OSs out of the box there would be some people that would want those.  Not that they are any better than 8.1, but a lot of people like the old stuff just because they are used to it.  For that matter there would probably be people who would like to still be able to use ME and there was someone earlier that was at least joking around about wishing they still had Vista...